METHODOLOGY
T
his report presents seven case studies, wherein each case study area is equal to the ½ mile radius around unique Metro rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations. The methodology for selecting and studying these cases is described below:Station Area Selection Criteria
A diverse set of seven station areas were selected from existing and planned Metro stations to reflect a range of physical and socio-economic conditions.
• Planning and geography — Each case study represents a different subregion of Los Angeles County, and was chosen with an eye towards jurisdictions or sub-jurisdictional planning areas that are currently undergoing planning efforts or that will do so in the near future.
• Land use and urban form — Case studies represent a variety of zoning and land uses contexts as well as a variety of built environment contexts.
• Transportation — Each case study represents a different line on Metro’s network, along with a variety of transit service types and ages.
• Demographics — Case studies represent a cross-section of racial/ethnic groups, population densities, and income levels, reflecting the diversity of the Los Angeles region.
• Displacement risk — To reflect concerns that TOD can increase displacement pressures, case studies were chosen using the classification from the Urban Displacement Project to ensure that the report examined station areas with a range of displacement risks.
Following the above criteria, we selected the following set of stations, in order from highest to lowest existing population density. Profiles of the case studies characteristics are presented below.
1. Wilshire/Vermont — Red/Purple Lines 2. Fillmore — Gold Line
3. Culver City — Expo Line
4. Van Nuys — Orange Line/ East San Fernando Valley Line (Future)
5. Compton — Blue Line
6. Paramount/Rosecrans — West Santa Ana Branch Line (future)
7. Leimert Park — Crenshaw/LAX Line (under construction)
Los Angeles River
MAY 2016 Subject to Change
Metro Rail & Busway
JUL 2018 Subject to Change
Subregion Station Area Type
Vermont Los Angeles Metro
Center Urban Center Commercial, High-rise residential
Red/
Purple Heavy rail 22 Fillmore Pasadena San Gabriel
Valley
Gold Light rail 15
Culver City Culver City / Los
Angeles Westside Urban
neighborhood
High-rise residential,
Low-rise residential Expo Light rail 4 Van Nuys Los Angeles
San
commercial Orange BRT 13
Compton Compton Gateway Cities
Blue Light rail 28
Paramount/
Rosecrans Paramount Gateway Cities
Branch Light rail -Leimert TABLE 1: CASE STUDY STATION CHARACTERISTICS
EXISTING CONDITIONS DOCUMENTATION
Each of the seven case studies includes a snapshot analysis of existing conditions, including:• Any upcoming planning efforts
• Transit ridership – average daily weekday boardings, for both rail and bus
• Housing and population characteristics –
population density, employment density, housing density, and recent housing production trends
• Demographics – median household income and racial/ethnic composition
• Walk Score® - a comprehensive indicator taking into account the built environment and amenities
• Displacement risk and existing tenant protections – reported displacement risk based on the UCLA/UC Berkeley Urban Displacement project
Data sources for the existing conditions and scenario analysis can be found in Appendix A.
We conducted a parcel-level analysis of each case study area to determine its potential housing capacity based on existing zoning. We found that many parcels are zoned for more housing units than are actually built. We refer to this capacity as “unbuilt capacity.” A significant amount of this unbuilt capacity stems from mixed-use allowances in current zoning. For example, the City of Los Angeles allows residential development in commercial zones. However, most commercial-zoned parcels do not actually contain housing, therefore leaving a great deal of residential capacity “unbuilt.”
In the City of Los Angeles, the unbuilt capacity is potentially greater than what we measured, because under the TOC program developers can increase the density of their projects in exchange for providing affordable housing units. However, because this is a decision left to private developers in the market, we did not incorporate TOC density bonuses into our existing capacity model. In some cases, this additional density bonus is available through the statewide density bonus program or SB1818. In both cases, our capacity model is focused more on existing conditions, and where housing is under-built relative to what the underlying zoning allows.
SCENARIO PROJECTIONS
Looking ahead, we sought to understand how a variety of different land use levers could change the land use mix and housing capacity in our case study areas.
We devised a set of rules or guidelines which we applied within the ½ mile radius case study areas, and created charts and maps to illustrate the potential increased housing capacity under both a “lower intensity” and “higher intensity” upzoning scenario.
These rules or guidelines include:
1. De-emphasize single family zoning: Allow duplexes in the lower-intensity scenario and four-plexes in the higher-intensity scenario. Notably, duplexes could also represent a single family home with an accessory dwelling unit.
2. Allow mixed-use zoning: Permit housing development in all commercial zones.
3. Deprioritize under-utilized industrial parcels:
Rezone legacy industrial zones which are often relics of historical freight rail service, and which are no longer important sources of jobs.
4. Tie density to distance from transit: Concentrate the densest level of development closest to the station itself, with density that “steps down” with increased distance from the station.
5. Create internal consistency within the station areas: Bring multi-family parcels to the highest level within each station area.
6. Reduce barriers to multi-family development:
Reducing lot width, lot area, and parking requirements.
Specific applications of these six criteria by station area are found in Appendix B.
In the future scenarios, we estimated the following outcomes:
1. How many additional housing units could potentially be added to the station areas in the lower vs. higher-intensity scenarios?
2. What effect would these housing additions have on population? For this, we assumed that each new housing unit would be home to the Los Angeles County average household size of 2.59, then rounded down to the nearest whole number.
3. How many potential affordable units could be added under these scenarios?
Outcome #3 takes into account that the different jurisdictions covered in the case studies have different policies in place relative to affordable housing. We did not calculate affordable housing in the portions of the case studies falling in the cities of Culver City, Compton, Paramount, or unincorporated Los Angeles County because they have no inclusionary zoning ordinance or density-bonus program that includes affordable unit production. For Fillmore, we assumed 15 percent affordable units in buildings of 10+ units, based on the City of Pasadena inclusionary zoning ordinance.
The City of Los Angeles has the most developed density bonus program of the jurisdictions covered in the case studies. The upzoning scenarios propose changes in zoning which would increase housing supply regardless of a density bonus program. However, as the TOC program is already in place and actively producing affordable housing in the city, we thought it reasonable to include predictions for the portions of our case studies within the City of Los Angeles in our model. There are four “Tiers” within the TOC program based on distance from and type of transit. Tier 3 is the most common found in our case studies, coinciding with the ½ mile buffers we chose to delineate the case study boundaries. Within Tier 3, developers can choose between setting aside 23 percent of units for
lower income households, 14 percent of units for very low income households, or 10 percent of units for very low income households. Early results from the program applications demonstrate a trend towards developers choosing the “extremely low income” so for this reason, this is the option (10%) to obtain our estimates.
As previously explained, the TOC program is an incentive and not a mandatory program. We would overestimate the potential for affordable housing production if we assumed that all developments chose the TOC density bonus. Therefore, we assume that only half of new development take advantage of this program. This is an arbitrary figure and the affordable unit production in the City of Los Angeles should be considered as an estimate.
CHARACTER INTRODUCTION
In addition to our empirically based case studies, we introduce a set of fictional people to illustrate how the changes in the case studies and the trends outlined in Chapter 2 may affect individuals. All of these outlined trends and changes matter because they have the power to affect the daily experiences of residents — where they live and work and as they move around Los Angeles County.
We introduce these seven characters here and then return to their stories in the case studies to show how their living situations, transportation patterns or other aspects of their quality of life have changed due to growth and evolution of the their transit-oriented neighborhoods.
DERRICK
lives in South Los Angeles. He and his family rent a duplex. They are saving up to buy a home in their neighborhood, but prices have been rising even on modest houses. Because his construction job sites are in different areas, he usually drives to work.He is happy that Metro is building the Crenshaw/LAX Rail Line to better link his neighborhood with the rest of the city and region, and hopes that development along the new line will increase his job opportunities.
However, he is also worried about rising rents and what will happen to his family and friends as the community changes.
AGE 42
OCCUPATION Construction worker RESIDENCE
LOCATION Leimert Park JOB LOCATION All over
CAMILA
is a college student at LA Trade Tech in Downtown LA.She grew up in the city of Paramount and recently moved into an apartment with roommates near the Vermont/Wilshire subway station.
She doesn’t own a car and has to take a long bus ride or pay for a ride hailing service to visit her family in Paramount. Growing up in a predominantly Latino community and studying environmental justice at school have opened her eyes to the stark differences between different neighborhoods in LA. Camila hopes to help change these inequities.
AGE 20 OCCUPATION Student
RESIDENCE
LOCATION Koreatown JOB LOCATION Downtown
LA
ISABELLA
is Camila’s mother. She and her husband areimmigrants. They live in Paramount, renting a one-bedroom apartment in a low-rise apartment building built in the early 1960s with their teenage daughter. They share a single vehicle but often have to juggle their schedules to determine who gets to use the vehicle at different times. She wishes transit was more reliable so sharing the household car wasn’t such a burden.
AGE 45 OCCUPATION Cook
RESIDENCE
LOCATION Paramount JOB LOCATION Southgate
JEONG-HO
immigrated to Los Angeles in the 1980s. He used to live in Koreatown where he owned and ran a store. His business income allowed him to eventually buy a home in Pasadena. He still frequently drives to Koreatown for church, socializing, and meals, or he parks at a Gold Line Station and rides there on Metro. As he ages, Jeong-ho is still active and healthy, but he is considering moving because his home is not well-equipped for him, and he knows his family will want him to stop driving soon.AGE 77 OCCUPATION Retired
RESIDENCE
LOCATION Pasadena JOB LOCATION
Visits Koreatown often
AMY
lives in the San Fernando Valley and works in West Los Angeles. She considers herself to be a typical LA commuter, ‘putting up’ with traffic because there aren’t good alternatives for her commute.Her employer is relocating to Downtown LA, and Amy is exploring whether she could use the Orange and/or Red Lines to get to work. Amy likes her neighborhood but wishes that there were more restaurants, coffee shops and other amenities closer to her home so she could walk to them like she walks to stores near her job.
AGE 52 OCCUPATION Human
resource specialist RESIDENCE
LOCATION Van Nuys JOB LOCATION West LA
JOSH
is Amy’s son. He recently graduated with a computer degree and found a job at a tech company with offices in Culver City. He is currently still living at home with his parents. He sometimes commutes with his mother partway from the San Fernando Valley. Josh is eager to find his own place to live, but Culver City is expensive, and he’s not sure what parts of the city or surrounding communities he should apartment hunt in.AGE 24 OCCUPATION Tech
developer RESIDENCE
LOCATION Van Nuys JOB LOCATION Culver City
SILVIA
lives in Compton where she also works as a teacher. She drives to and from school and for most of her errands and trips. Silvia is in her first year as a teacher and is getting to know her students and their families. She is concerned that several of her students seem to be on the verge of losing their homes and one has been homeless for much of the semester.AGE 31 OCCUPATION Teacher
RESIDENCE
LOCATION Compton JOB LOCATION Compton
BACKGROUND
Wilshire/Vermont has the highest intensity land use of the case studies. Apart from a small number of single-family blocks, most of the station area is zoned either for medium to high density commercial or medium-to-high density residential. The area is somewhat less dense than the highest density neighborhood in Los Angeles – Downtown. Even though Wilshire/
Vermont is already proximate to “transit-supportive” density (64 people and 43 jobs per acre), its current zoning allows for more than twice the amount of housing that it currently holds. This is largely because the area’s commercial zones allow for high-density residential development but are mostly used for offices and other professional services, which give property owners the highest possible rents.
The existing building stock is quite old. Much of the older brick-clad walk-up apartment buildings exceed the zoned density because they have high FARs on small lots, built prior to Los Angeles’ 1941 zoning ordinance. The Urban Displacement Project identified a high displacement risk in the area, mainly due to its combination of both lower income and vulnerable groups, and the fast pace of recent development. Taking this into account, and the fact that Wilshire/Vermont is already zoned for high density, our upzoning scenarios do not propose any substantial changes that would increase displacement risk in the area.
WILSHIRE/VERMONT STATION AREA
ACTIVITY DENSITY 1924 AREA MAP
64 people/acre 35 jobs/acre PLANNING
Wilshire Community Plan set to be
updated in 2021
TRANSPORTATION
Red line station
10,477 rail boardings/day 16,145 bus boardings/day
HOUSING AND POPULATION
32,255 people 64 people/acre 18,644 housing units 37 housing units/acre
20% of housing built since 2000
DEMOGRAPHICS$35,086 median household income
51% Latino, 37% Asian, 6% white, 5% black, 1% other
WALK SCORE®
93 — Walker’s paradise
DISPLACEMENT RISK AND EXISTING
TENANT PROTECTIONS
High risk, rent control for properties
built before 1978 and just-cause
eviction for rent-controlled properties
OUTCOMES
POPULATION 32,255 98,425 98,448 99,316
DENSITY
(PEOPLE/ACRE) 64 196 196 198
HOUSING
UNITS 18,644 38,201 38,192 38,527
POSSIBLE NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS 0 16
POPULATION NET INCREASE BETWEEN EXISTING CAPACITY AND FUTURE SCENARIO
23
people 891
people
The future for Wilshire/Vermont remains the most unchanged across the case studies. Because of the high levels of
density, Walk Score® and transit ridership, the area likely sees a notably low VMT per capita. Based on the existing literature cited previously in this report, current and future residents likely have lower utility bills and environmental impact because they are likely to use 2.5 times less water and 56 percent less energy than people living in single family households.
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
0
density expressed as minimum square feet per unit Zones are based on LA City zone or equivalent Los Angeles has no zone with density 1250 sf/unit.
Existing Low Scenario High Scenario
Existing
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
0
density expressed as minimum square feet per unit Zones are based on LA City zone or equivalent Los Angeles has no zone with density 1250 sf/unit.
Existing Low Scenario High Scenario
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING UNITS BY ZONING/DENSITY CLASS
Existing
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
0
density expressed as minimum square feet per unit Zones are based on LA City zone or equivalent Los Angeles has no zone with density 1250 sf/unit.
Existing Low Scenario High Scenario
DISTRIBUTION OF ZONED LAND AREA BY ZONING/DENSITY CLASS
EXISTING LOW SCENARIO HIGH SCENARIO
Note: Existing capacity excluded from above figures because land use is unchanged in existing capacity scenario
0n/a R1
Density expressed as minimum square feet per unit Zones are based on City of Los Angeles zone or equivalent in other jurisdictions
Los Angeles has no zone with density 1250 sf/unit.
Affordable units calculated as 10% units in half of develop-ments. Population net increase =
(new housing units) * (LA county average household size)
CAMILLIA is a college-student living near the
Wilshire/Vermont station. Compared to the suburban home where she grew up, she can get around by foot and public transit. As a result, she feels more independent and healthier.
Her apartment building doesn’t have any parking so she isn’t having to pay for a parking space she wouldn’t use.
BACKGROUND
The Fillmore Station area has the lowest population density of the seven case studies at 13 people per acre. The area does have a high density of jobs at 24 per acre in sectors such as health, education, and government.
Fillmore hosts a high diversity of land uses; it is close to equal parts residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities.
However, few of these land uses are mixed, with most located in separate zones. Most of Fillmore’s residential land is low-density (less than 10 people per acre) except for a corridor of multi-family housing along Marengo Avenue. Most of the station area does not currently permit housing at all. More than half of all new development is commercial or other non-housing related uses, such as a Whole Foods. Housing has not been a focus of new development in the Fillmore Station area although the area’s housing supply has increased by 10 percent since 2000 with the addition of 384 units which are mostly along Marengo Avenue, two blocks east of the station.
FILLMORE STATION AREA
PLANNING
General plan updated in 2015
Update to the Central District specific plan now underway
TRANSPORTATION
Gold line station
1,525 rail boardings/day 3,948 bus boardings/day
HOUSING AND POPULATION
6,480 people 13 people/acre 3,858 housing units 7 housing units/acre
10% of housing built since 2000
DEMOGRAPHICS$77,021 median household income
19% Latino, 20% Asian, 51% white, 7% black, 4% other
WALK SCORE®
71 — Very walkable (70-89)
DISPLACEMENT RISK AND EXISTING
TENANT PROTECTIONS
Low displacement risk, no rent control or just-cause eviction in Pasadena
ACTIVITY DENSITY 1924 AREA MAP
13 people/acre 24 jobs/acre
EXISTING
FILLMORE STATION AREA
The existing population density in Fillmore is below the thresholds for high-performing transit service and likely depresses transit ridership at the station, overall. Based on research previously cited in this report, through these changes, the persons per acre could rise from 13 people/acre to 33-74 people/acre, all of which would take the station area to density levels that are supportive of effective bus and high-performing light rail service, respectively.
JEONG-HO was able to afford a small condo in a senior-housing development near the station. He learned about the
JEONG-HO was able to afford a small condo in a senior-housing development near the station. He learned about the